Re: filmscanners: Film grain vs 2700 DPI scan resolution

[rafeb <rafeb@channel1.com>]

At 12:07 AM 7/2/01 +0100, Tony Sleep wrote:
>On Sat, 30 Jun 2001 19:26:33 -0600  Frank Nichols (frank@theNichols.net) 
>wrote:
>
>> 1. With 200 film, is the grain "large" enough for the 2700 DPI to 
>> record it?
>> If so could some one describe it (or email me a couple scan clips 
>> showing
>> examples?)
>
>No, IME you are unlikely to see genuine grain off ISO200 Fuji using 
>2700ppi. You are likely to get some aliasing which looks like grain. A way 
>to check this would be to have a reasonably large C41 print made (say 
>12x8"). I'll bet. 


Well, I don't know if it's grain or an alias of grain, 
and not sure I'd recognize the difference.  To me, it 
just looks like grain.  Not just on the print, but 
on screen as well.

To be honest, I never did color darkroom work on C-prints, 
just a bit of Cibachrome printing.  But I sure have seen my 
share of 35 mm, Tri-X, pushed to obscene speeds and printed 
at 8x10" and 11x14", on an Omega B22 condenser enlarger.

Whatever this stuff is that I'm seeing, it clearly correlates 
to film ISO rating and quality... just like grain.  So I guess 
to my feeble mind, simple "grain" is an adequate model for what 
I'm seeing.

Not having the wherewithal to get 8000 dpi scans of 
my images, this simple (though flawed) model will suffice 
until new observations warrant its replacement.



rafe b.